In December 2023, nearly three weeks of unidentified drones hovering over sensitive areas of Langley Air Force Base laid bare a problem U.S. officials were not prepared to handle: determining who was responsible for investigating the incursions — and who had authority to act.
A new Pentagon Inspector General report indicates those same gaps in authority and coordination remain unresolved across much of the War Department, even as drone activity near U.S. military installations continues with striking frequency.
The watchdog report warns that the Pentagon lacks clear, consistent policies governing counter-drone operations at domestic installations, leaving many bases unsure whether they are authorized to respond when drones appear overhead. The findings reinforce what defense officials and outside experts have cautioned for years: while the military can often detect drones, confusion over jurisdiction, approval processes and legal authority can delay — or prevent — action.
The report warns that “immediate attention [is] required” to protect War Department assets from unmanned aircraft systems, citing unclear policies, conflicting guidance, and a lack of operational approval at many installations.
Pentagon leadership last year established Joint Interagency Task Force 401 to better coordinate counter-drone efforts across the department, but the watchdog concluded the recommendation to consolidate policies and authorities remains unresolved.
In December, the Department of War issued updated counter-UAS guidance intended to address longstanding confusion over authority and jurisdiction highlighted in previous drone incursions and oversight reviews. The Inspector General’s report reflects conditions prior to that update and does not assess the revised guidance.
The revised policy expands commanders’ ability to assess and respond to unauthorized drone activity beyond installation fence lines, clarifies how “covered facilities or assets” can be designated based on risk, and improves interagency coordination and data-sharing with partners such as the Department of Homeland Security and the Justice Department.
US PRISONS BATTLE EVOLVING DRONE TECHNOLOGY USED TO SMUGGLE CONTRABAND TO INMATES
Michael Healander, CEO of Airspace Link, said the Inspector General’s findings reflect challenges he has seen while working with military bases and civilian authorities on drone airspace awareness.
Airspace Link works with the FAA, municipalities and select military installations to track authorized drone activity, flag unidentified drones near bases, and improve coordination across civilian and government airspace.
“When we read the document, we noticed these are issues that we’ve been starting to solve with some of these military bases,” Healander told Fox News Digital. “It’s that understanding of what are the rules and regulations per base — whose drones are whose — and really having that airspace awareness is an issue.”
Healander said identifying whether a drone near a military installation is authorized, misrouted or potentially hostile is often less about detection technology and more about coordination in crowded domestic airspace.
PENTAGON EXPLORING COUNTER-DRONE SYSTEMS TO PREVENT INCURSIONS OVER NATIONAL SECURITY FACILITIES
“There are tools out there. The technologies are out there,” he said. “It’s just they don’t have the frameworks, and it seems to be different from base to base.”
The Inspector General report found that the War Department has failed to provide clear, consistent guidance on which installations qualify as “covered assets” eligible for counter-drone protections, resulting in conflicting lists maintained across the department. In some cases, high-value bases conducting critical missions were excluded because their activities did not neatly fall into narrow mission categories defined in federal law. The watchdog concluded these policy gaps have left many installations unsure whether they are authorized to act during drone incursions.
The scope of the issue is far from isolated. U.S. Northern Command head Gen. Gregory Guillot said during a roundtable last year that drone activity near War Department installations occurs almost daily.
“We’re between one and two incursions per day” at War Department installations, Guillot told reporters.
Healander said confusion often intensifies when drones appear outside a base’s perimeter, where military authority intersects with FAA-regulated airspace and local law enforcement jurisdictions.
“What happens if there’s a drone outside the fence line?” he said. “Most military bases don’t have jurisdiction out there.”
Modern drone identification tools — including systems that detect remote identification signals, radio frequencies, radar and optical tracking — can often determine where a drone originated and whether it is registered. But Healander said that without standardized rules governing who operates those systems and how information is shared, detection alone does not translate into timely decisions.
“If you have those technologies together, you can start to see where the drone came from,” he said. “It’s just making sure that these bases have a framework to follow.”
The Inspector General also found that the approval process required for installations to use counter-drone systems is fragmented and burdensome, with different military services following different procedures. In many cases, installations must procure and test systems before receiving authorization to use them — a hurdle that has led some bases to forgo seeking approval altogether, even after experiencing incursions.
Healander said improving situational awareness and coordination will become increasingly urgent as civilian, commercial and public-safety drone operations expand near military installations, further complicating an already crowded low-altitude airspace environment.
“Getting their house in order first — understanding who’s flying, where, and under what authority — is the starting point,” he said.
